When we see records being broken and unprecedented events such as this, the onus is on those who deny any connection to climate change to prove their case. Global warming has fundamentally altered the background conditions that give rise to all weather. In the strictest sense, all weather is now connected to climate change. Kevin Trenberth

HIT THE PAGE DOWN KEY TO SEE THE POSTS
Now at 8,800+ articles. HIT THE PAGE DOWN KEY TO SEE THE POSTS

Saturday, February 8, 2014

U.S. Keystone XL report relied heavily on Alberta government-funded research from a subsidiary of a major tar sands developer

State Department review used studies funded by Alberta agencies and
carried out by Jacobs Consultancy, a subsidiary of a major tar sands
developer

by John H. Cushman, Jr., InsideClimate News, February 7, 2014Alberta
Premier Alison Redford during a speech in Calgary in November 2013.
Alberta government agencies devoted to expanding oil sands development
funded research that was used by the State Department in its
environmental review of the Keystone XL pipeline. Credit: Chris Schwarz.The analysis of greenhouse gas emissions presented by the State
Department in its new environmental impact statement on the Keystone XL
pipeline includes dozens of references to reports by Jacobs Consultancy,
a group that is owned by a big tar sands developer and that was hired
by the Alberta government—which strongly favors the project.In the end, the environmental review took into account much of the
Jacobs group's work—though not quite as much as the Alberta government
wanted. The State Department report
will play a crucial role in the Obama administration's decision about
whether to approve the Canada-to-Texas tar sands pipeline.The Jacobs Consultancy is a subsidiary of Jacobs Engineering,
a giant natural resources development company with extensive operations
in Alberta's tar sands fields. The engineering company has worked on
dozens of major projects in the region over the years. Its most recent
contract, with Canadian oil sands leader Suncor, was announced in January."The Alberta Oil Sands are a very important component of our
business," the parent company said in late 2011, announcing seven new
contracts in the region. "Jacobs has a strong history in the area, and
we are pleased to support our clients in these initiatives."Jacobs's deep involvement with the expansion of the tar sands extends
beyond its engineering activity. Jacobs Consultancy has carried out
influential studies assessing the oil sands' carbon footprint—research
that has played a role in in the Obama administration's review of the
Keystone XL.Two of its widely cited reports were paid for by government agencies in Alberta that are devoted to oil sands expansion.One, done in 2009, was among a handful of studies chosen by the State
Department in its Jan. 31 environmental impact statement to represent a
range of estimates of the tar sands' greenhouse gas impact.As a rule, the Jacobs carbon footprint estimates of the tar sands oil
that would move through the Keystone XL were considerably lower than
alternative estimates produced by the U.S. National Energy Technology
Laboratory, or NETL, which is part of the Energy Department and is
independent of tar sands commercial interests.Rather than choose a single figure, the State Department presented a
range of estimates. Compared to other sources of oil, it said, annual
incremental emissions of tar sands oil moving from Alberta to the Gulf
Coast through the Keystone would fall between 1.3 million tons of carbon
dioxide and 27.4 million tons.The 1.3 million figure came from Jacobs; the 27.4 million figure from NETL.A spokesman for Jacobs did not return a call.The research is significant because President Obama has said he will
base his decision on whether the project will "significantly exacerbate"
climate-changing pollution.Alberta has made extensive use of the Jacobs data when its officials
have lobbied governments and politicians against imposing strict limits
on tar sands imports because of the fuel's heavy carbon footprint,
including in California and in Europe.The Jacobs FactorJacobs may be an unfamiliar name to the public, but it is one of the
best-known and often-cited sources by researchers studying the emissions
of carbon dioxide from the tar sands and how they compare to other
types of fuel. The Congressional Research Service,
for example, cited the Jacobs studies in its own survey of the tar
sands' carbon footprint, and they have figured in past environmental
impact statements about other tar sands pipelines.When Alberta sent the State Department its official comments last
year seeking tweaks to the Keystone draft environmental report, which
was still under review, the name Jacobs occurred two dozen times, on six
of the Canadian letter’s 19 pages.Alberta's repeated invocations of the Jacobs group's expert opinions
centered on the two influential studies the group wrote in recent years,
one published in 2009 and the other in 2012. Both had to do with
measuring the carbon footprint of Canada's tar sands crude oil.The 2009 study, in particular, has been widely cited since its
publication in just about every report examining how much dirtier the
tar sands fuel is than other fuels from anywhere in the world.In the State Department's final environmental impact statement, as in
the draft, the Jacobs group's work is mentioned repeatedly in the same
breath as work by the National Energy Technology Laboratory.But as Alberta's government sought to influence the conclusions in
the lead-up to the crucial final State Department review, provincial
officials wanted the contractors writing the agency's environmental
study to pay more attention to the 2012 Jacobs study than the 2009 one.The 2012 study contained more recent data, the Canadians pointed out.It also presented a prettier picture of pollution from the tar sands as compared to pollution from other sources of oil.Alberta's government also wanted the State Department in its final
review to correct one citation of Jacobs in its bibliographic list of
references. It had to do with who funded the 2012 study.The citation said the 2012 study, like the 2009 study, had been
conducted for the Alberta Energy Research Institute, an arm of the
provincial government sponsoring research on behalf of tar sands
enterprises.Not so, Alberta noted. Rather, the later work had been commissioned
by the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the province's other
arm—devoted to pushing tars sands as well.Either way, Alberta had been paying for research to advance its
strategic interest in producing more oil from the tar sands and shipping
it to more new markets.That has been a traditional role for Jacobs. Often, its work has been
cited—twisted, according to some pipeline opponents—by the governments
of Alberta and Canada or by sympathetic research institutes to further
the cause of expanding the tar sands and building new corridors for
sending its oil abroad, such as the Keystone XL.Alberta Half LosesIn the end, the final environmental impact statement for the Keystone
XL pipeline leaned more heavily on Jacobs's 2009 study than the 2012
one preferred by Alberta.The 2009 study was deemed more useful for dealing with the Keystone
XL situation, as it compared Canadian crude oil to typical U.S. crudes.
The 2012 study was more useful in Canada's fight to tear down the
European Union's fuel quality directive, a law that would effectively
discourage tar sands shipments to refineries in Europe if is carried
out."Because Jacobs Consultancy (2012) focuses on the European market,
this analysis continued to use Jacobs Consultancy (2009)," the final
State Department report explained in a footnote.Either way, the Jacobs work was meant to play down the carbon
footprint of tar sands fuels by emphasizing factors that would tend to
depress any calculations of the pollution burden.In its 2009 document, Jacobs explained that previous studies of the
carbon footprint of tar sands—such as one by the firm Farrel &
Sperling that found the footprint of tar sands fuel to be 41 percent
higher than other grades—had neglected to consider various factors that
would make the picture look less stark.Jacobs was hired, it said in the 2009 report, to provide a "fair and
balanced" assessment for purposes of countering California's low carbon
fuel standard, which inhibits sales of high carbon fuel like Alberta's.That assignment came from Alberta Energy Research Institute, now
operating under the name "Alberta Innovates," and previously known as
the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority, established in
1974 "to promote the development and use of new technologies for oil
sands and heavy crude oil production."